Maximum SQ from a CD? 44.1/16? or ???

[surfingrob]

Hello everyone!

So i know it's absolutely dependent on source quality... And some music seems to lend itself better to a more spacious soundstage (totally digging Miles Davis Kind of Blue at 192/24!).

What i'm unsure of is - using kind of blue as a reference - is it the album or the 192/24? Since purchased from HDtracks i'm not sure if this was from a CD or DVD audio?

So if i want to re-rip some CD's and don't mind the extra space of the FLAC vs mp3's - what's the max bitrate i should aim for? And on even a remastered CD is 44.1/16 about the limit?

Lots of newbie questions! Appreciate the info or pointing me to do more reading (i did search but am obviously missing something).

Thanks!

[Dat Ei]

Re: Maximum SQ from a CD? 44.1/16? or ???

The audio format of an Audio CD is wav with 44.1 kHz sampling rate and 16 bit resolution per channel. To rip a CD means that you read out that data digitally.


Dat Ei

[garym]

Re: Maximum SQ from a CD? 44.1/16? or ???

The audio format of an Audio CD is wav with 44.1 kHz sampling rate and 16 bit resolution per channel. To rip a CD means that you read out that data digitally.


Dat Ei

And if you're ripping a CD, the best you can do is create 44.1/16 digital files. All CDs are redbook 44.1/16. One *can* force an upsampling but this would be silly. It doesn't add any audio content but just makes the file larger. Essentially it adds a bunch of zeros (not exactly the same, but think about whether you want to represent a number as 1.000 vs 1.00000000000. This does nothing but take up more space.

On the other hand, the files you purchase from HDTracks are likely hi-res files that are not redbook CD files. They are 96/24 or 192/24. (although I assume hdtracks sometimes will sell 44.1/16 files. They should be telling you this at time of purchase.

[monsterjazzlick]

Re: Maximum SQ from a CD? 44.1/16? or ???

Hi Rob,

Welcome to the forum!

I use 'Quobuz', but I did consider 'HD Tracks' (alongside a couple of others) initially.

This, of my threads, may or may not be of use to you (in case you did not notice it):

https://forum.dbpoweramp.com/showthr...t=miles+corner

You may be able to glean some information from here ...

Cheers,

Paul

[Michael Sargent]

Re: Maximum SQ from a CD? 44.1/16? or ???

Before starting to spend big bucks on HD audio, you should take a sound test to see if you can actually hear the difference. CD audio is already better than what you can theoretically hear, so buying HD audio may be a waste of money if you can't hear the difference.

Mike

[monsterjazzlick]

Re: Maximum SQ from a CD? 44.1/16? or ???

Before starting to spend big bucks on HD audio, you should take a sound test to see if you can actually hear the difference. CD audio is already better than what you can theoretically hear, so buying HD audio may be a waste of money if you can't hear the difference.

Hi Mike,

I found the listening experience of hearing Miles Davis in 24-bit/96.00 kHz to be positively astounding!:

https://www.qobuz.com/gb-en/album/bi.../0886443874428

However, the only album I have ever purchased (as a d/l) is Miles's (16-Bit CD quality):

https://www.qobuz.com/gb-en/album/th...926?qref=dac_7

... which just sounds like an exact replicate of the original (ie. the non-complete sessions) hard-copy CD version I own.

Cheers,

Paul

[Michael Sargent]

Re: Maximum SQ from a CD? 44.1/16? or ???

Take that 96/24 copy of Bitches Brew and convert it to 44.1/16 (standard CD resolution). Then do some ABX testing (foobar has an add-in) and see if you can tell the difference. Odds are the 9/24 sounds good because they remixed it, not because it's hi-res.

Mike

[monsterjazzlick]

Re: Maximum SQ from a CD? 44.1/16? or ???

Take that 96/24 copy of Bitches Brew and convert it to 44.1/16 (standard CD resolution). Then do some ABX testing (foobar has an add-in) and see if you can tell the difference. Odds are the 9/24 sounds good because they remixed it, not because it's hi-res.

Hi Mike,

So converting it into 44.1/16 will alter the mix? I am not sure that would be correct, but I could be wrong.

Cheers,

Paul

[garym]

Re: Maximum SQ from a CD? 44.1/16? or ???

Hi Mike,

So converting it into 44.1/16 will alter the mix? I am not sure that would be correct, but I could be wrong.

Cheers,

Paul

No, not at all. What he is saying is that if one listens to a 96/24 and the same song from 44.1/16, and thinks the 96/24 sounds better, it is likely the reason is that the underlying MIX/MASTERING is *different*. It is NOT the fact that one file is 96/24. To test this, Mike suggests correctly that one downsample the 96/24 to 44.1/16. Then compare the two files (once both are 44.1/16). If one still hears a difference, it is likely the mix/mastering (and not the 96/24 factor).

[Michael Sargent]

Re: Maximum SQ from a CD? 44.1/16? or ???

Odds are the 9/24 sounds good because they remixed it, not because it's hi-res.

I should have been clearer.

I'm saying that if you take the brand new 96/24 recording, and convert it to 44.1/16 you won't hear any difference. The human ear isn't capable of hearing the difference between the two. Of course, if you have spent any time playing with two-stroke engines (weed whackers, chain saws, model airplanes), or have attended live rock concerts, or listen to loud music with earbuds/headphones, etc. you probably have already damaged your hearing well below the theoretical best you could ever do. And then there is good old just getting old.

If you found the new 96/24 mix of Bitches Brew to be significantly better than your old 44.1/16 recording, then it's probably a new mix, not the fact that it's high-res. Try down-sampling the new recording and you probably can't tell the difference between the new 96/24 mix and the new down-sampled 44.1/16 version of the new mix.

Do the tests and you can save yourself a lot of money. (Which you might start spending on surround recordings, because everyone can hear the difference between 2 channels and 4 or more channels.)

Mike

[Dat Ei]

Re: Maximum SQ from a CD? 44.1/16? or ???

Hey Mike,

I'm saying that if you take the brand new 96/24 recording, and convert it to 44.1/16 you won't hear any difference. The human ear isn't capable of hearing the difference between the two.

I wouldn't second that. Aside of the human factor it is a question of the recording itself and the euipment. The samplerate of 44,1 kHz and the bit depth of 16 bit per channel have been just a compromise made for the technical possibilities at that time (costs, stability, max. capacity). But today, nearly 40 years later, we have other possibilities.


Dat Ei

[monsterjazzlick]

Re: Maximum SQ from a CD? 44.1/16? or ???

No, not at all. What he is saying is that if one listens to a 96/24 and the same song from 44.1/16, and thinks the 96/24 sounds better, it is likely the reason is that the underlying MIX/MASTERING is *different*. It is NOT the fact that one file is 96/24. To test this, Mike suggests correctly that one downsample the 96/24 to 44.1/16. Then compare the two files (once both are 44.1/16). If one still hears a difference, it is likely the mix/mastering (and not the 96/24 factor).

Hi Garym,

It (downsampling) is not something I have ever performed, to be very honest with you. It is only in the last couple of years that I have become interested in music in this particular way (hence me purchasing 'dBpa' and joining this forum).

I certainly did here a difference comparing the Miles Davis 'Bitches Brew' recordings, and I would bet my bottom dollar that even a monkey could detect the difference immediately! But, as I say, this comment is pre-downsampling.

The main differences I could hear was 'separation' between the instruments, and the whole track(s) having more 'warmth (ie. less abrasive).

I will need to check (re-read) kind assistance previously provided in another thread which I created last year (I think the comments are contained in: 'The 49 Year Old Virgin').

Thanks,

Paul

[mville]

Re: Maximum SQ from a CD? 44.1/16? or ???

I'm saying that if you take the brand new 96/24 recording, and convert it to 44.1/16 you won't hear any difference. The human ear isn't capable of hearing the difference between the two.

I wouldn't second that. Aside of the human factor it is a question of the recording itself and the euipment. The samplerate of 44,1 kHz and the bit depth of 16 bit per channel have been just a compromise made for the technical possibilities at that time (costs, stability, max. capacity). But today, nearly 40 years later, we have other possibilities.

Like Dat Ei, I do not agree with the first statement. The hearing range (up to approx. 20kHz) was not the only factor used in the design of the Compact Disc audio format and the limitations that existed when Compact Disc was introduced, no longer exist.

It is true though, that due to problems with hearing, age and personal listening environments etc. it is probably a good idea for users to listen and compare hi-res recorded audio, mastered at 44.1kHz, 16-bit and 96kHz, 24-bit, rather than assuming that the hi-res masters will sound better to them, as the prices offered by the likes of HDtracks, for hi-res audio are IMO, ridiculous.

[monsterjazzlick]

Re: Maximum SQ from a CD? 44.1/16? or ???

It is true though, that due to problems with hearing, age and personal listening environments etc. it is probably a good idea for users to listen and compare hi-res recorded audio, mastered at 44.1kHz, 16-bit and 96kHz, 24-bit, rather than assuming that the hi-res masters will sound better to them, as the prices offered by the likes of HDtracks, for hi-res audio are IMO, ridiculous.

mville,

Yes, those prices are hiked-up way too high! I wonder if they actually sell very well? I mean, you must have spare cash to burn if you are able to purchase your music collection in this format. Possibly people who are loaded, and caught up in a case of The Emperor's Clothes!

Paul

[Michael Sargent]

Re: Maximum SQ from a CD? 44.1/16? or ???

Like Dat Ei, I do not agree with the first statement. The hearing range (up to approx. 20kHz) was not the only factor used in the design of the Compact Disc audio format and the limitations that existed when Compact Disc was introduced, no longer exist.

None the less, the specifications of Red Book CD's still exceed the hearing capabilities of human beings. The engineers at Sony and Phillips did a great job designing a spec that wasn't just "good enough". It's better than required as basically no one can hear beyond those limits.

I'm glad to see that although we may disagree about the above point, we seem to be in complete agreement about the need to test to see if you can actually hear hi-res before buying into it. Here's a quote from Wikipedia [Hearing Range] (emphasis mine):

The range shrinks during life,[14] usually beginning at around age of eight with the upper frequency limit being reduced.

I didn't think it started that early.

Mike